TheScout

Interpreting the original intent of a law is very different than judicial activism. Originalist theories assert the laws have a fixed and knowable meaning. Meanwhile activists believe laws have a dynamic, flexible meaning.

Affairs have taken me to Missouri right now. But apparently there is a lot of snow in Buffalo. I just find it amusing how Mandela and the ANC are put a such a pedestal but a mere 30 years ago they where shooting and blowing up white people. It seems you can do whatever you want if it is in the name of anti-apartheid?

So was Smith a part of what the ANC which our own State Department classified as a terrorist organization in the 1980s and responsible for the murder of whites too like Mr. Mandela. I hope so . . . that would make a great role model. I would want to know what the kids said first. Has anyone even asked that?

Schindler's List? Wow. Because this almost equates with the Holocaust . . .

Just because a party calls itself conservative doesn't make it so. Even if both parties are full of big government people these days doesn't mean that small government people don't exist somewhere.

You seem to confuse Classical Liberalism with modern liberalism. The word has come across a very interesting change in meaning. The liberals of of the early Republic were the small government people. Now the liberals are the big government people. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that the big government people have continually expanded the power of the Supreme Court?

And it was the liberals who have long sought to increase the power of the Supreme Court. How people hate to reap what they sow.

Narraticong, If you really have done your research, do you recall who the Lehi were? Or the Palmach, or the Irgun? Or why did the British pull out of Palestine so hastily in 1948? If you will read all of your history you will find that the Jews of Palestine have plenty of terrorist blood on their hands as well. It is easy to decry terrorism and wage conventional war after the succesfull establishment of your state, but when they, like the current Palestinian Muslim did not have a state, yet desired one they resorted to terrorist tactics. They were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers who died in terrorist actions such as bombings of trains, assasinations, and vehicle-born explosives.

I don't see where that idea is authorized in the Constitution. But I guess nobody cares about that anymore . . .

Trees grow back.

No. Thats what I meant. Article I strictly limits Congress by specifically listing the things it may do. Giving money to corporations is not listed. Further the 10th Amendment more clearly defines the power of the federal government, saying: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I don't know where the bailout would be authorized by the Constitution.

How? Income inequality was less before 1913 than now.

I think the real culprit is the Federal Reserve itself. The country did pretty good for itself before the Fed was created, huh? Came across a good quick explanation of the value of abolishing it recently written by Llewellyn Rockwell: "Abolishing the Fed would put a huge brake on the planning state. Without the ability to expand the money supply at will, the federal government would become about as threatening as state or local government. That is to say, the federal government would still be an intolerable imposition on life, liberty, and property; but we wouldn't be worrying about hyperinflation, large-scale bubbles in specific sectors, crazy business cycles, trillion-dollar bailouts, controls that reach into every nook and cranny of our lives, a cradle-to-grave welfare state, or a global empire that invades any and every country at will, and makes America the enemy to whole regions of the world. That's only the beginning of what the end of the Fed would mean. It would dramatically change the political culture in this country. Bureaucracies would tumble. Trade would stabilize. The investment-risk calculus would accord with the free market. The Left could no longer live out its pipe dreams of socialist utopia at our expense. The Right would have to give up its wacky notion of a world police state. The power ambitions of whole sectors of society would be scaled back." Who can disagree with any of that?

I think there is a misunderstanding of the two major wings of the conservative movement: Paleoconservatism and Neoconservatism. The current Republican party is and has been for a good deal of time been dominated by Neoconservatives. They are much more inclined to use the power of government to support "conservative" ideals than the Paleoconservatives who are the traditional small government more liberetarian-leaning types. The difference can be best pictured when looking at George Bush who is essentially the perfect neocon and a Ron Paul who would be the best current example of a paleocon. Paleoconservatism, which really isn't a strong force it modern politics is the small governemnt version - and everyone harps on why the Republican party has become one of big government - because for a while they haven't paid more than lip service to tradtional conservatism.

"a chill runs down my spine when my preacher acts as an agent of the State" Yeah thats right in line with the traditions of the United States and Western Civilization.

I am from Buffalo. Best city in the US.

"But let them decide for themselves on any basis whatsoever - including hate, ignorance, and greed. Smart people, with the resources to leave, will respond accordingly." I don't know exactly what that means. There are many people that believe in many things that you might call ignorance, but I think they believe them with all the best intentions possible. I still believe we should prosecute all murder of any type (though on a state level). Isn't it a core belief of the American dream that the dignity of every human life should be respected?

Packsaddle, You could support a limited government philosophy in regards to health care and still think government should stop abortion. Especially if you believe its murder. We all agree murder should be illegal, right? Personally, I do not think either should be a federal issue. According to the Constitution neither is. Bring back federalism bring abortion and health care to the state level. Let the people of each state determine these issues consistent with their values, traditions, and history. This is why we have states, I thought. They were not supposed to be mere administrative organs of the central government.

Why do you say that packsaddle? I consider myself very pro-life but do not like universal health care (at least on a federal level).

"It's a very common misperception that the Constitution enumerates limits on what the federal government can do. While it does list some restrictions (no bill of attainder, no removal of habeus corpus), it doesn't restrict the federal government to a list of items it is allowed to do. Most people who state this point to the list of items in Article 1, Section 8 as the only things the government can do. But that isn't what this article does. Rather, this article restricts the list to the federal government alone (or to show the difference - it means "Only the federal government can do these things" NOT "The federal government can only do these things"). Only the federal government can borrow money on the credit of the United States - not the states. Only the federal government can issue patents and copyrights - not the states. Only the federal government can raise a navy or army - not the states." Oh my Calico. My heart sank when I read this. This is the worst interpretation of the constitution I have ever heard. Try reading the works of any of the founding fathers on the constitution and you will quickly see that you are in error. I don't even know what to say. Article I, Section 8 clearly says: "Congress shal have the power . . ." And only there does it list the powers of Congress. Also many of the early Constitutional amendments included an enforcement clause which allowed Congress to enforce the amendment. Another realization that Congress did not have unlimited power. Further the 10th Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Another clear indication that the powers of the federal governement are quite limited. I must point out that there is no Article 9 of the Constitution as you claim, which only further shows your lack of understanding of the document. You do correctly point out that the Bill of Rights further limits the power of the federal government. However recall the reason why it was not originally put in the Constitution and why Mr. Madison at first opposed its adoption: Why should Congress be barred from doing things that it had no power to do it the first place. Such as why should Congress be barred from abridging the freedom of speech when it had no right to do so in the first place.

You say we should embrace federalism. However you say we should keep education block grants to states to fund higher educations standards. Same with health care. You said that states should administer it to the poor with federal resources. Such measures are what kill federalism. It does not allow the states to decide for themselves their own priorities. It directs them from Washington - certain health care and education standards, and fund them accordingly. Your plan would use the states as mere administrative agencies of the federal government. This is not true federalism which recognizes the sovereignty of the states.

Not bad. I would make a few changes. 1. Forget fences. Put the military on the border. Forget the National Guard. Active duty Army soldiers could stop immigration and smuggling cold and save millions. 2. I don't like term limits. It lessens our liberty, not allowing us to vote for who we wish at all times. 3. I love the flat tax. No exceptions though - it applies to everyone. We are all equal, aren't we? 4. Balanced Budget Ammendment- I don't know about this. We have it in New York. They just play with the numbers and we run up a debt every year anyway. Plus there has to be outs for emergencies, which would make this useless. Better to just elect fiscally conservatice legislators - if this is possible? 5. Right on. Think how much money we could save and how many tax dollars could be returned to the people. 6. Stop sending Money overseas. Especially wealthy countries like Israel who spy on us all the time and for years. 7. I don't mind the UN being here. We should just be less involved. 8. I like our national anthem. If any change should be made I prefer the old unofficial anthem, Hail Columbia. 9. We already have top notch stuff. Money needs to be spent better. From the inside of the military one can see how much waste there really is. 10. Interesting. But isn't it just another federal mandate? And we will probably pay for it.

Chief Technology Officer? I haven't heard of that one. Another reason not to vote for Obama.

I admire Sam Adams who through the British chests of tea in Boston harbor. America was founded in the midst of a tax revolt.